I'm incredibly excited about the September 4th Climate Emergency Fast being organized by the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and others. I've signed up and hope you will too, by clicking here. In one week, the number of fasters has grown from 395 to 795 and continues to multiply. Everyone I've talked to about it is instantly drawn to it; people seem to instinctively understand that we need to move beyond the polite letter-writing, lobbying, and yes -- blogging -- that has characterized response to the climate crisis thus far.
In most true crises, people take to the streets if the government doesn't act. What's happening to the planet is a crisis of that scale, but thus far hasn't got the dramatic response it merits. Institutional advocacy just won't cut it; as a recent groundbreaking study by Jon Agnone of the University of Washington shows. As Ken Ward summarized in a recent post here:
- Protest is significantly more important than public opinion or institutional advocacy in influencing federal environmental law. Agnone found that each protest event increases the likelihood of pro-environmental legislation being passed by 1.2 percent, and moderate protest increases the annual rate of adoption by an astonishing 9.5 percent.
- Public opinion on its own influences federal action (though less than protest), but is vastly strengthened by protest, which "amplifies" public support and, in Agnone's words, "raises the salience of public opinion for legislators." Protest and public opinion are synergistic, with a joint impact on federal policy far more dramatic than either factor alone.
- Institutional advocacy has limited impact on federal environmental policy.
Coming in the wake of Al Gore's call for civil disobedience against polluters, this fast could be the start of a vital shift in the strategy of the environmental movement -- getting out of the halls of power where it's easy to have demands mollified with half measures and into the streets: the point at which leaders start freaking out and wondering what you'll do next. Of course, it's always important to keep any protests accessible and sympathetic to the average person. It's necessary to do the organizing in advance to ensure that your action has widespread public support and won't provoke a crippling backlash, but I think we're getting to that point in the climate crisis.
Already some climate big shots have signed up: Rev. Jim Wallis, Vandana Shiva, Dennis Brutus, Sally Bingham, Bill McKibben, Rev. Bob Edgar, Van Jones, Mike Tidwell, Billy Parish, Brent Blackwelder, Ilyse Hogue and many more.
So join me and sign up now!
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 7:54 am
30 Aug 2007
Great Idea
Now this is the real stuff we should be doing.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:42 am
31 Aug 2007
Dead end strategy
In a head to head fast, Rush Limbaugh would just be getting down to a healthy weight by the time the last of us enviros died of starvation.
On a serious note, I like it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:51 am
31 Aug 2007
Bloated Libs
Right.
Like schmoozing up the brie and cappucinos with the IPCC haven't supersized Big Al
http://bokertov.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/ ...
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 2:54 am
31 Aug 2007
Consumer power
If people want to make a change maybe consuming less?
Permalink
kman Posted 12:14 pm
31 Aug 2007
ummm....
I care for the environment, I really do. I'd also love to see action taken to prevent the potential damage. I also appreciate the efforts of everyone doing this, but honestly, I do not think this is necessary. I've taken to street protests, etc, but i dont know if i'd fast for the climate. As someone above has said, we'd probably starve to death by the time Rush Limbaugh reaches healthy weight.
Also, even tho we are destroying nature, i dont see why we should go extinct ourselves (i'm sure that's the message that will come out of this). I mean afterall, we are a part of nature, and every living being consumes. The goal should actually be to consume less and sustainably as MarkUK said, rather than consume nothing.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:07 pm
31 Aug 2007
Fast Can Mean More than Food
We can fast in more ways than not eating food:
- Not making movies
- Not littering the world with CDs
- Not using up energy with spurious spam media (Linsay Lohan take note)
- Not over using PR (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie take note).
- Not flying people around (Richard Branson take not).
- Not driving (GM take note)
How about shutting down the entire Grid for a whole day?How about spending a whole day:
Walking
Talking
Thinking
Living
???
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
KevinMichael Posted 7:53 am
03 Sep 2007
This is futile and bad for your health.
This is absolutely worthless. These people are much better off making a commitment to simply take their lunches to work/school in reusable containers. If everyone did the obvious...none of these strident protests would be necessary.
Stay positive, love your life.
Permalink
ahavemann Posted 5:35 am
04 Sep 2007
Fasting Today...
I am fasting today and am one of the organizers of the Climate Fast. It is inspiring to see discussion of the fast going on independently of our work here at USCEC.
The main coordinator of the fast, Ted Glick (whose fast is open-ended and will continue for weeks), is keeping a daily blog of his thoughts as he gets further into his fast. Check it out at www.climateemergency.org/blog.
And thanks for all of your comments!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:42 am
04 Sep 2007
better idea
No need to fast. Just give up meat. A 2005 study -http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pd ... - by University of Chicago researchers found that eating vegetarian fare is more effective in reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions than replacing a gas-guzzler with a hybrid car.
Permalink